General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSyria isn't going to respond like the president thinks to a 'shot across the bow'
Last edited Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:41 AM - Edit history (4)
________________________
. . . if, in fact, we can take limited, tailored approaches, not getting drawn into a long conflict, not a repetition of, you know, Iraq, which I know a lot of people are worried about but if we are saying in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bow saying, stop doing this, that can have a positive impact on our national security over the long term, and may have a positive impact in the sense that chemical weapons are not used again on innocent civilians. -President Obama interview with Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff of PBS
Military intervention in Syria isn't going to be 'limited' to a few days, restricted to 'targeted sites', or, just a 'shot across the bow.
The President says it will not be "a repetition of, you know, Iraq," but, its that very naivete (or bullshittery) that makes the prospect of a military strike in that country as full of as many unanswered questions and pitfalls as Bush's own assertions about his intent to deploy our military resources to defend our national security against a very similar set of unproven allegations about WMDs.
I realize that President Obama has promised to present the evidence this week but it already sounds like they're relying on the process of elimination, rather than hard evidence. Claiming that the Assad regime is the only actor there capable of delivering a chemical attack in the way this one is alleged to have occurred is not the same as providing definitive proof.
Answering a question from Labour MP Glenda Jackson today, British Prime Minister David Cameron admitted "there is no 100% certainty about who is responsible" for the chemical weapons attack in Syria.
Claiming, as the White House did yesterday, that there's 'no evidence of any alternative' to Syrian govt. responsibility for chemical attack isn't the kind of definitive proof that should be required to attack a nation across its sovereign borders. Dismissing the possibility that an inspection team would be capable of uncovering the truth in Syria - even before one had been deployed - was a signal to Syrians and others that this administration has a pre-determined mindset against that nation which is never going to recognize the truth behind whatever evidence is uncovered.
There are reports today that the administration is rejecting a Syrian request that U.N. inspectors stay longer and is pushing ahead with plans for a military strike.
There's open speculation today that the decision of the UN inspection team to end their investigation in Syria a day early is in anticipation of an imminent military strike by the U.S.. What could be more analogous to Bush's own decision to allow his zeal for a military solution in Iraq to stifle and stymie a diplomatic (UN) effort?
Moreover, the President's talk of a 'limited' military strike that sends a 'message' to the Syrian regime ignores the almost certain blowback the regional allies like Israel will experience almost immediately after a U.S. assault. Does President Obama really believe that Syria and their allies will be so impressed with our display of military might that they'll just fold and surrender? Not many folks think that's likely to happen.
More chance that a U.S. attack will embolden and validate those views in Syria and the region that it's really just American influence behind the opposition, rather than interests more dedicated to what Syrians actually want for their own country.
We can certainly argue and debate about the differences between Syria and Iraq - for instance, the size and potential of Syria's much more equipped and capable forces. Yet, it is this administration's determination to sell military intervention in Syria as a cakewalk that most reminds of Bush's own assertions about invading Iraq. Some supporters are even trying to make like we'd be greeted as liberators there for dislodging Assad from power.
No, Mr. President, you're wrong. U.S. military intervention across the sovereign borders of Syria is very much so "a repetition of, you know, Iraq." Same thin thread of proof; same rosy set of assumptions about a 'limited' military action; same ignoring or dismissal of the Syrian response; same clueless denial about who our military action would actually be serving in Syria.
President Obama is correct that Syria isn't Iraq; it's much more adept at exploiting our nation's interests in Israel and elsewhere in the region. Unless this administration steps back and approaches this issue with a deeper mindset than Bushian-variety arrogance and bluster, we're going to find ourselves on a slippery slope to a widened war.
So far, President Obama looks eager enough in his own belief in the efficacy and effect of deploying our military defenses to cause Syria to change their behavior. I believe strikes will just inflame and exacerbate whatever divisions exist there today. No 'shot across the bow' will automatically end them.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Although we of course insisted we didn't directly intervene in Libya. Syria might have somewhat better military capabilities, but unless Russia intervenes, which is very unlikely, we will just grind it down from a distance, and then proceed to give air support to the "rebels", many of whom are Sunni jihadists, until the Assad regime collapses. This will of course also destabilize Lebanon as Hezbollah loses its neighboring ally and certainly piss off Iran, which views this whole thing as us joining the Sunni side in the 1300 year old Sunni Shia conflict. Who knows how that plays out, but for sure our neocons think it plays out in the collapse of the Iranian regime as well. It certainly results in absolute fucking chaos in Syria with far more than just a few hundred civilians dead.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)thanks to http://zfacts.com/iraq-war-quotes
09/18/2002, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense (before Congress)
"We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas. ... His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weaponsincluding anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox." (presentation to Congress)
03/22/2003, General Tommy Franks
"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
03/30/2003, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
"We know where they are [Iraq's weapons of mass destruction]. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
03/31/2005, President's Commission on WMD
We conclude that the Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction
bigtree
(85,919 posts)bigtree
(85,919 posts)Greg Sargent @ThePlumLineGS 14m
Here's the link to the @nytimes edit questioning legal/strategic case for strikes on Syria http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/opinion/more-answers-needed-on-syria.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0
Supersedeas
(20,630 posts)bigtree
(85,919 posts). . . stay vigilant.
Celefin
(532 posts)Couldn't agree more.
It baffles me how a highly intelligent man like President Obama could seriously ponder such a monumentally stupid course of action.
DURec
bigtree
(85,919 posts)I believe President Obama's response to this report of a chemical attack is mostly an opportunistic one that's propelled into action by his overriding ambition to remove Assad from power.
There are clearly many false assumptions made by the President here about the effectiveness of using military force to influence one side or the other in a civil conflict.
Celefin
(532 posts)I like thoughtful and reasoned posts that can't be put down by silly one-liners.
Let's just hope he pulls back from the brink.
Fingers crossed.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)What if they threw a war and no one came to fight....?.
Not one American should be sacrificed for Syria. Just as not one Syrian should be sacrificed for America.
Some great power wants America and Americans to do their dirty work.
President Obama, stay the fuck out of Syria. Or put on armor yourself and go to the front lines. Lead the way.
Fight the PTB, Barack. Don't kill anymore daughters anywhere. Don't do their dirty work.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Why do we pay admirals in the US 100's of thousands, when we can hire one in China for 5g a year?
Surely the PTB have this figured out?
Hell, our intel is so incompetent, (or too busy watching us?) the
non-Snowden-agency, the NSA, doesn't know where the missiles are fired from or who fired the missiles. And we pay these people good money?
We are being used. Obama is being used. Change is needed now, more than ever.
'Not one American should be sacrificed for Syria. Just as not one Syrian should be sacrificed for America.'
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)- Extended Warfare
- Not Effective
There is no "punishment bombing." There is no "sending a message." There is war, and there is not launching a military attack.
Exhortations to the contrary are bait-and-switch or at best, willfully fantastic thinking.
bigtree
(85,919 posts)"bait-and-switch or at best, willfully fantastic thinking"
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)given our recent history.
And this is something we should recognize more. It's OUR history. All of American political dynamics did not change when Bush went and Obama arrived.
We unquestionably traded up, but all of this infamous baggage -- these crimes -- belong to all of us, and come from a system made up of much more than an administration or a hopeful election or a smarter, better President in the White House.
There is big power, big money, and big politics in play, every time we talk about war. Those big, hungry jaws open again and demand cash and blood and sacrifice, because pouring resources into the ME is the biggest business venture in history.
We can't toy with that beast. Can't take it out for a stroll around the park. It devours. Always.
Supersedeas
(20,630 posts)and an unwillingness to commit to the thing you threaten
dawg
(10,610 posts)The declaration of a red line was the actual point of mistake, everything else follows directly from there.
I think the President will order limited cruise missile strikes on Syrian military targets, and hopefully that will be it. Assad is likely to retaliate in some fashion, but when he does, hopefully our government will just lie to us and blame the "terrorists".
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)if it concludes Assad used chemical weapons? Because maybe the UN inspection won't show what we "want" it to show?
It's hard not think the ME hawks aren't simply winning an internal fight in the administration here.
It's also hard not to think about the last time the U.S. charged into a ME country after refusing to wait for the U.N. inspections we demanded be halted, because "our" evidence was so overwhelming, according to "us."
dawg
(10,610 posts)being perceived as weak. If we don't back up our "red line" threats with force, no one will take them seriously in the future.
I don't think the President is looking for a massive intervention in Syria. I think he just talked himself into a corner.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)We are the most heavily-armed nation in history. No one is going to get the mistaken idea we aren't willing and able to blow the hell out of anything and everything if we fail to sufficiently follow through on a "red line" speech.
We'll actually look smarter and more respectable if we find a way not to shoot or bomb anything in this particular situation.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)bigtree
(85,919 posts). . . silly, really, trying to live up to his own unrealistic expectations.
At least, that's not what we should concern ourselves with; whether Pres. Obama can save face.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)bigtree
(85,919 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)bigtree
(85,919 posts). . . best of luck, to us.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)When I saw the PBS Interview I was pretty shocked at what he was saying. It was as if he had no memory of the President he replaced and what went on before...or even why he was elected by hardworking Democrats who didn't want Bush Wars/NeoCon Wars of Agression that cause nothing but suffering for people in the invaded or droned countries and declining economy plus jobs and wages here at home. We cannot afford this EMPIRE.
The only thing he left out was "they will welcome us and greet us with flowers!"